$55,000 to cover legal expenses of Beach Patrol Operations Director against a decision made by the City appointed Ethics Commission.
Plus $50,000 hush money.
Cost to taxpayers $105,000 vs the $22,000 to fund a full time solicitor for the Ethics Commission which could have been a strong, effective tool to protect the interests of the citizens of Ocean City.

Is there an "old boys" network in our town? You decide.

Next in the hopper are the Police dog attacks. How much will this cost us?
Justice, Ocean City Style,

No wonder Sandy bared her fangs.
Steven Fenichel, MD

The Ethics Commission will be a constant source of problems for the city due to the caliber of some of its members. I know, I had an experience with people on the Ethics Commission when I brought a case. The 2 members of the Commission were completely unable to comprehend what the case was about no matter how many times and in how many ways it was conveyed. When discussing part of the problem, that we contended that a politican lied about something important - one of the members said, "so what, don't all politicans lie," and "wouldn't you lie if you could?" I was dumfounded. Then I have read comments on the Patch by a current member and his comments have been completely unfair and judgmental toward a neighborhood group. This Ethics Commission doesn't work may look good on paper - does not work in practice.

Parker - Again you venture dead center into territory you have no familiarity with. I know the case Liz describes intimately. There is no question that the members did not undertand the complaint - which was constructed directly in the framework of the city and state ordinance (it acutally integrated the facts of the case into the two documents). The complaint could not have more merit. The conclusion that the members did not understand the complaint is not interpretive: The Board's written decision unambiguously shows this - it clearly mistates the heart of the complaint and reaches a decision on the wrong assertions. And even that conclusion was hard to accept because it was premised on the ideas that it is OK for politicians to lie (even to federal agencies as was the case here), and that one unethical act can be forgiven by another unethical act. Believe it or not, that's what actually went down and it is in plain english. Last thing - for what it's worth telling you this - here goes: not a good idea to judge people's credibility, wisdom, judgement, etc based on their professions.

A sixth thing to know from the last council meeting is that ordinance 13-07 was taken up on first reading and voted on. Ordinance 13-07 is a 4 page document which council members did not receive until the night before the vote (the City Solicitor apologized for the lateness.). I doubt if council members had the time to give it more than a cursory read if that, let alone to study its complexities. That did not deter council however from introducing the ordinance and voting on it.

The ordinance was not advertised to the public in advance of the meeting (unless you consider adequate notification to be a couple of hours prior to the meeting.) It is now (finally) on the City website should you, as a citizen, want to know what it is your council representatives already voted on.

I encourage you to read the ordinance for yourself (it is also posted on shorenewstoday.) This ordinance is of MAJOR consequence to property owners and was rushed thru with reckless abandon and without ANY opportunity for citizen input. Once again due process was thrown to the wind. I can understand the sense of urgency but is it wise to vote on something you haven’t maturely considered?

This is out of control! Our city Council does not care about the average citizen and out of state home owner. I happened to be in town last week checking on my home and I attended city council meeting. Wow I do not know Ed Price but his research and I checked on it was accurate and and precise. 22,000 dollars to service city vehicles off shore when we had yes three repair shops open and three detail shops open?????
Our own mayor's wife is head of the chamber of commerce and the city work was sent to A business in marmora!!!! And no purchase order for the work thank you Ed Price this is to be investigated!!

The home owners in the south end are totally being ignored and excuse after excuse. From city council and the mayor. Stop paying your taxes in the south end beaches lets all get together do not be afraid there is only one way to get help in the south end do it our self and then send the tax bill back to the council sitting there doing nothing for us

And another thing about this council meeting, Hartzell's worthless speech when, as usual, he just droned on saying nothing (but he always has to speak and never has anything worthwhile to say.) You know something, Mr. Harzell, you have worked with the north end business people to take south end wetlands for a recreational project that could be accomplished right on the streets with no wetland impacts. You and Scott Ping deciding that acres of wetlands could be sacrificed for a bike path (of course when insurance salesman and realtors speak, that gets your attention.) (Were you promised some votes?) That is why you make all your decisions, based on votes promised in the future. On a barrier island, wetlands provide flood protection as well as beaches and dunes. You don't just destroy the environment for votes. Give it up, you will never be Mayor.

Mr. Sauder,
Is that a nomination comment? Mr. Price as an at large councilman would be very benefical to the majority of OC's population and their wallets. It was unfortunate that both he and Mr. Guinosso had to run against each other for the 4th Ward seat. Mr. Guinosso seems to be the Lone Ranger on council. He needs a Tonto.

Dudley do: the issue is not whether the Ethics Commission found for or against the case. The issue is, their inability to understand the case. The remark, "don't all politicians lie," and "wouldn't you lie if you could" was not taken out of context. The letter sent did not state that it was conveying a "personal opinion" but implied that it was the city's position. (And if the letter was not a problem, why was it "immediately rescinded and an apology issued?") As I say - the outcome was unimportant but the comments about lying were important as was the inability to grasp the case at all. This doesn't impact me personally, but if I were a city worker, I would not want my career and reputation at the mercy of such a committee. (And after reading comments by another member here on the Patch - confirmation)

Also - your characterization of the ordiance is correct but your interpretation of it is not correct, especially as it applied to the complaint. There was in fact the prospect of gain by both the member and a family member. That gain was not material, but it does not have to be. In fact, at the time, the Board claimed that if there is actual or potential material gain, then the matter must be turned over to the criminal courts. I am not sure but I think they may have changed their thinking on that because, obviously, it creates a circular block.

Dudley Do Right - you're wrong

How about a slate?
Irene for Queen.
Pete for King.
Ed for Court Jester.

Bigbusinessrules. I guess you are unable to find a good therapist in Ocean City. I think it might be worth traveling to the big city as these symptoms seem to be escalating out of control

Actually, when it comes to real Queen material, I'm thinking AJ, Frank Ruch, Bob Henry, Bigbusinessrules --- you know - that's real Queen material and I don't think I am alone in that thought either Maqybe that will be the "slate" this year for Miss Night in Venice AJ, Frank Ruch, Bob Henry -- you have my vote